[WikiEN-l] When Unsourced Isn't That Bad

[Steve Bennett]

On 4/11/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Most of them *are* idiots. See [[WP:AFC]].
> >
> Then we're screwed. Period.

I think 'idiots' was a harsher term than I meant. They're a
combination of clueless and not that smart. Fortunately, only the
smarter ones tend to actually stick around and work on the project. I
mean, it is an encyclopaedia after all...

> I figure we can tell a newbie maybe (maybe) three things. Because,
> well, we don't want to overwhelm them or try to Taylorize them.
>
> #1 has to be NPOV. Period. End of discussion.
> #2 should be to use talk pages, as they remain somewhat non-obvious.
> #3 could then be "cite sources," but I think verifiability is vastly
> more important for this.

What does "cite sources" mean? Is it "cite all the sources you used"?
People do that anyway. What we should tell them would be something
like:
1) If it hasn't been published, don't say it
2) If you don't tell us where it has been published, we probably won't
believe you.

Steve